Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > >> I believe the stage0_main name is misleading. After all, stage0 > >> is pure asm and lives in its own .S file. > > > > let's call it stage1 then and main() > > Works for me.
I'm afraid I don't like that. Please suggest something that makes the timeline obvious. I think we already have other problems like this in v3. I would be OK with adding phases to stage1 e.g. but I have also contemplated flattening the stage/phase tree to only have stages and no phases - though that doesn't have to happen right now. //Peter -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
